Supreme Court of the United States

[chancellor]

I do believe there are people of such extraordinary talent, skills, vision etc that their contributions to their field and to the overall advancement of society can lead us to overlook, deny, ignore personal sins, personality traits, etc.

I can't think of any living politicians who should get such treatment. The idea that anyone should compromise their personal morality to support the likes of Bill Clinton or most especially Donald Trump is absurd. Bill Clinton was 100 times as capable as president as Donald Trump, yet he falls way short of mark terms of electing him despite his sins. If you have a sick child and a doctor convicted of horrible crimes is the only one with the skill to save your child, or the only one available, you allow that doctor to treat your kid. But if you are a voter with many options, many of whom are just as capable or more capable of doing the job as past or certainly our current president, why support the deeply flawed person? The only way you do so is if you buy into the tremendous con job that Clinton or Trump or whoever is uniquely qualified for the position. Anyone that holds any of our politicians in that high esteem befuddles me. Certainly there are exceptional public servants in politics, but none are so special that we must or should support them if they are as flawed as the ones we are talking about are. They are easily replaced by others of similar ideological bent, similar platforms, and similar skills to move their agenda forward (I already know Chance and 1jay disagree, and think Trump is super special and the only human capable of accomplishing the GOP agenda items he has done while in office; I maintain, he ain't that smart, he ain't that special).

If you were a different poster, I'd just state this is another example of how liberals will twist truth and lie to advance their means. However, I'll just instead politely refute the point.

I've made it clear that Trump is the only GOP president in my lifetime - including Reagan - who's taken the libertarian/conservative point of view to reduce government and government regulation and actually moved it forward. I've also stated, and backed up, that he's the only GOP president in my lifetime who has advanced the libertarian/conservative agenda to any significant distance.

But only human capable? C'mon, stop it already. Either Bush could have - especially the first, given his immense popularity after Desert Storm I'll posit the reason he lost to Bill Clinton was that he didn't seize the opportunity for libertarian/conservative change which would have energized much of his base and enabled him to hold off a master politician in Bill Clinton. Reagan did some positive things, but deep down, and backed by his increases in non-defense spending during his tenure, was still a big government believer. In fairness, he probably did what he could, given that he'd have been opposed by one of the most politically astute Speakers of all time in Tip O'Neill.

ETA: Not really related to this thread, but if we are talking about former presidents Dems would support and would win, I'd love to see the match up we will never get to see--Obama vs Trump. That would be worth the pay-per-view price. Obama would crush Trump IMO.

Of course he would. Heck, I think I've been pretty open that just about anyone other than Hillary would have beat Trump. Bill Clinton would have. Bernie Sanders would have. I suspect Joe Biden, who I hold in complete contempt, still would have since despite his flaws, he'd certainly have had his sorry butt in Michigan far more frequently than Hillary and would certainly have shown up in Wisconsin.

[Teenwolf]

It has to be viewed as a bad sign towards his credibility that he denies ever blacking out from drinking, despite mountains of evidence and witnesses that contradict him.

[In the Corn]

It has to be viewed as a bad sign towards his credibility that he denies ever blacking out from drinking, despite mountains of evidence and witnesses that contradict him.

The convenience of blacking out is you never remember if you did.

I continue to think Kavanaugh should step away from the process. With that said, there is definitely a political side to this.

[nots]

Chuck Grassley appears not to know how to read. Lol.

[Ken]

The convenience of blacking out is you never remember if you did.

That's actually not true. I have blacked out twice, both in my early 20s when I'd have parties at my house (so no driving involved thankfully), and I distinctly remember the odd feeling the following morning that I did not remember how I got to bed. It's a very strange feeling and very memorable. Blacking out means you don't remember the time when you blacked out, but it also leaves a memorable impact when you realize the next morning that it occurred.

[Moonlight J]

The convenience of blacking out is you never remember if you did.

I continue to think Kavanaugh should step away from the process. With that said, there is definitely a political side to this.

The fact the committee won't use their subpeona power to bring in Mark Judge? Yes, I agree with you

[nots]

The fact the committee won't use their subpeona power to bring in Mark Judge? Yes, I agree with you

Lol. Yeah, that’s the political part of it

[Ken]

Lol. Yeah, that’s the political part of it

Both sides are playing politics here. Which isn't surprising since they are politicians. It's just that when the spotlight is shined on it, like today, we see how gross it is.

[nots]

Both sides are playing politics here. Which isn't surprising since they are politicians. It's just that when the spotlight is shined on it, like today, we see how gross it is.

Exactly. Both sides.

[Sour Masher]

I've made it clear that Trump is the only GOP president in my lifetime - including Reagan - who's taken the libertarian/conservative point of view to reduce government and government regulation and actually moved it forward. I've also stated, and backed up, that he's the only GOP president in my lifetime who has advanced the libertarian/conservative agenda to any significant distance.

This is interesting--maybe not ideal for this thread, but I'd love to hear from the libertarian leaning folks here on their thoughts about how well Trump embodies libertarian ideals and how much he has done to push forward a libertarian agenda. Aside from rolling back regulations to make for a more business friendly environment, cutting taxes (mostly for corporations), and defunding social welfare programs, I don't know how Trump fits the bill as significantly advancing a libertarian agenda. I think most of his opponents in the primaries would have done those three things. I'd concede he has pushed forward a socially conservative agenda, but a true conservative would have taken into consideration what his tax policy would do to our national debt (an issues both parties have failed to address properly). He certainly has put up conservative judges, but again, would Cruz or Rubio, or even Kasich or Bush not done that, or cut taxes, or roll back some of the financial regulations, given the political climate at the moment? With Republican control in Congress, and a clear shift to the right, I just don't see anyone who would have won against HRC not doing this things. Maybe Trump has done some of these things more aggressively than they would have, but we are talking about a matter of degree not kind here, and is it really worth it for what else Trump brings to the table?

[baldgriff]

This is interesting--maybe not ideal for this thread, but I'd love to hear from the libertarian leaning folks here on their thoughts about how well Trump embodies libertarian ideals and how much he has done to push forward a libertarian agenda. Aside from rolling back regulations to make for a more business friendly environment, cutting taxes (mostly for corporations), and defunding social welfare programs, I don't know how Trump fits the bill as significantly advancing a libertarian agenda. I think most of his opponents in the primaries would have done those three things. I'd concede he has pushed forward a socially conservative agenda, but a true conservative would have taken into consideration what his tax policy would do to our national debt (an issues both parties have failed to address properly). He certainly has put up conservative judges, but again, would Cruz or Rubio, or even Kasich or Bush not done that, or cut taxes, or roll back some of the financial regulations, given the political climate at the moment? With Republican control in Congress, and a clear shift to the right, I just don't see anyone who would have won against HRC not doing this things. Maybe Trump has done some of these things more aggressively than they would have, but we are talking about a matter of degree not kind here, and is it really worth it for what else Trump brings to the table?

Im going to paste in the Trump thread.... hope that isnt stepping on anyone's toes.

[nots]

This is interesting--maybe not ideal for this thread, but I'd love to hear from the libertarian leaning folks here on their thoughts about how well Trump embodies libertarian ideals and how much he has done to push forward a libertarian agenda. Aside from rolling back regulations to make for a more business friendly environment, cutting taxes (mostly for corporations), and defunding social welfare programs, I don't know how Trump fits the bill as significantly advancing a libertarian agenda. I think most of his opponents in the primaries would have done those three things. I'd concede he has pushed forward a socially conservative agenda, but a true conservative would have taken into consideration what his tax policy would do to our national debt (an issues both parties have failed to address properly). He certainly has put up conservative judges, but again, would Cruz or Rubio, or even Kasich or Bush not done that, or cut taxes, or roll back some of the financial regulations, given the political climate at the moment? With Republican control in Congress, and a clear shift to the right, I just don't see anyone who would have won against HRC not doing this things. Maybe Trump has done some of these things more aggressively than they would have, but we are talking about a matter of degree not kind here, and is it really worth it for what else Trump brings to the table?

I don’t believe any of the other GOP candidates would have beaten Clinton, so in order to get the things done you listed, folks on the GOP have to get into bed with Trump.
As for the libertarian POV: I hate to paint with a broad brush, so speaking only for myself: he has done some things I absolutely love (and in a few regards is the most libertarian President of my lifetime by a mile), but his demeanor, his character, his lying etc. make him unelectable in my mind. The amount of bad cancels out the good for lack of a deeper analogy. I don’t support him, didn’t vote for him and won’t vote for him again, but I can point to quite a few things I like about his administration. I will admit to being bothered by folks that will, under no circumstance, give him credit for anything at anytime , anywhere.

[Sour Masher]

I don’t believe any of the other GOP candidates would have beaten Clinton, so in order to get the things done you listed, folks on the GOP have to get into bed with Trump.
As for the libertarian POV: I hate to paint with a broad brush, so speaking only for myself: he has done some things I absolutely love (and in a few regards is the most libertarian President of my lifetime by a mile), but his demeanor, his character, his lying etc. make him unelectable in my mind. The amount of bad cancels out the good for lack of a deeper analogy. I don’t support him, didn’t vote for him and won’t vote for him again, but I can point to quite a few things I like about his administration. I will admit to being bothered by folks that will, under no circumstance, give him credit for anything at anytime , anywhere.

Thanks for your reply nots. I replied more in-depth in the Trump thread--baldgriff, thanks for moving this over there.

[onejayhawk]

I don’t believe any of the other GOP candidates would have beaten Clinton, so in order to get the things done you listed, folks on the GOP have to get into bed with Trump.
As for the libertarian POV: I hate to paint with a broad brush, so speaking only for myself: he has done some things I absolutely love (and in a few regards is the most libertarian President of my lifetime by a mile), but his demeanor, his character, his lying etc. make him unelectable in my mind. The amount of bad cancels out the good for lack of a deeper analogy. I don’t support him, didn’t vote for him and won’t vote for him again, but I can point to quite a few things I like about his administration. I will admit to being bothered by folks that will, under no circumstance, give him credit for anything at anytime , anywhere.

It's called TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I think Cruz would have had a real shot. He would destroy her in the debates and out work her twenty different ways.

J

[nots]

It's called TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome.

I think Cruz would have had a real shot. He would destroy her in the debates and out work her twenty different ways.

J

I think you greatly underestimate how despised Cruz is. I am a guy who should be a voter in his wheelhouse, and I hope he loses to that Beto clown.